Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-05

eeDt the law LETT nCG0lnS 20 tAe COueeAoueo
or discretion of the court. II such is the
degree OF strictness which is required IN
ordinary cases of writs from one court 10
anotheri in the same general jurisdiction, We
oueht to be careful that it is not at all
relaxed in q case like this, when the ground |
relied on for reversal by this court is the
Judgment of the highest court of the State. |
That the error complained OF is SO great as |
to amount in law to denial by the State
Of y trial by an impartial jury to one VINO
ia accused of crime. we are unhesitatlngiy
OF opinion that no such case is disclosed oy
this record. We come now to
CONSIDER THE OBJECTION
that the defendant Spies, was compelled by
the court to witness against himself. He
voluntarily offered himself as witness in
his own behalf, and by so doing ne De-
came bound to submit himself to proper
cross.examination. The complaint 10 that
be was required, on cross'e1a minatlon, 20
state whether he had received q certain
letter which was shown, purportlng TO
have been written by Johann Most and
addressed to him, and upon his saying
char fIu f1n,a, tlso court allowed tho letter
to be read in evidence against him. This,
it is claimed, was not proper cross.examl'
nation. 1t is not contended that the SUD,
| iect to which the cross-examination related
was not pertinent to the issue to be tried,
a nd whet her a cross.exa mination must De
confired to matter pertinent to the testl-
| mouy in chief, or may be extended to mat
ters in issue is certainly question OF state
law in the courts OF the State. and rot OF
Federal law. Something has been SAID IN
the argument about an alleged
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
of papers and property OF some OF the de-
fendants and their use in evidence on the
trial of the case. Special reference is made
in this connection to the letter OF Most
about which Spies was cross-examlned ou,
We have not been referred to any part o.
the record in which il appears that ob]ec
Ition was made to the uae OF evidence or
that account and upon this point tht
iSupreme Court OF the State, in that par
of it's opinion which has been printed VIII
this motion, remarks as follows: IN.
objection that the letter was obtained
; from the defendant by an unlawful selzur
ia made for the first time in this court.
was not made on the trial in the court below
Such an objection as this which is no
, suggested by the nature OF the offered evl
, dence depends upon proof OF an OUT
aide fact that should be made on tn
. trial, The defense should have prove
that Most's letter was one OF the letter
illegally seized by the police and shouit
then have excluded or opposed It's adm,s n
sion on the ground that it was oota'neo
j.. such illegal seizure. This was not dons
and therefore we cannot consider the Con
3 st;tut;onal question supposed to be il
Il yolyed," Indeed the rule OF the Statute {
t Illinois as it was construed by the tr's
conrt ia not materially different from tina
=. which has been adopted by the courts
= many of the States without legislatlV
: action. Without pursuing this sub!et
: further it is sufficient to say that we agr'
e entirely with the Supreme Court OF limo
y in the opinion that the statute on lts 'a'
x as construed by that court
Is NOT REPuGNAN1
to Section 9, Article 2, OF the Constitutio
that statute which guarantees to the q
- - cused party in every criminal prosecute
=. speedy trial by an impartial jury OF t
county or district in which the offense
10 alleged to have been committed. AS tnls
"a substantially the provisions OF the CONS
d tuition of the United States on wh'cn
ae petitioners now rely, 1t follows tnaI ev
Mt # their position as to the operation 81
of effect of that Constitution is correct, t
statute is not open to the objection viii
;s made against it. Even though I
court as wrongin saying that it did n
annear that the Most letter was one OF t
re M ners illegally seized, it still remains I
In. lcontradicted that nu objection was ma
"a in the trial court to its Omission on tn
account. To give DO jur'sdlcsion
at der Section 7O9 Of the Revised Statut
IN because of denial By State Court
OF any title, right. privilege or lmmun
claimed under the Constitution, or
treaty or statute of the United States
must appear that such title, right. prlvil
or Immunity was specially set upor clam
or at the proper time and in the proper WI
red to he renewable the decision must
ire AGAINST right so set up or claimed as
,.a Supreme Court of the State was review
,as the decision OF the trial court. 10 mi
civ the question renewable herelt must app
that the claim was made in that court;
cause the Supreme Court was oniy autn
ICED to review the judgment OF tnao 60
Ing for errors committed there ana We can
m. No more. This is not, as seems to be
-. nosed bv one OF the counsel Tor the
" tiouers, a question OF
to "AASA" o' A''
oss under the Constitution, laws or treaties
it the United States, but question OF cia
If not set up or claimed in the pre-
court below the judgment OF the 81
:,,. Court in the action is conclusive 80
iihe a. the right Of review here is concer!
ring The onestion whether the letter obtai
tep- "a claimed would have been compe'
. ia evidence is not before Us, and therefore
to. found alton is laid under this objection
win the exercise OF our jurisdiction. AS
the suggestion by counsel ior me sa Pe'';
ers Spies and Fielden, that S2'ee;
Great Britain, they have been denied
no the decision OF the court below
hieh r;ohts guaranteed to them
ID 10 treaties between tho Onltea ..
se. and their respective countries, !